show_board

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavior burden, and it does disclose the important parts: passing `id` mutates an existing board in place, and figures must be data-bound rather than typed into props. It does not say whether the supplied spec replaces or merges with an existing board, what is returned, or whether the write is reversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The framing sentence is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence covers a distinct concern (spec shape, data binding rule, id semantics). The inline JSON fragment is dense but functional; nothing reads as padding, though the middle paragraph is heavier than it needs to be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with an untyped free-form spec parameter, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of constructing a spec and binding data. It still leaves the agent guessing about create-vs-render semantics, spec/id precedence, and the unused `title` parameter, so it is adequate rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and `spec` is declared as a bare `{}` with no structure, so the description's root/elements/props/children breakdown and the `$state` binding syntax add real value. However, `title` is never mentioned at all, and the component vocabulary is outsourced to `draw`'s documentation rather than restated, so the compensation is partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description frames the tool concretely as the long-form counterpart of `draw` and states it consumes a self-authored json-render spec, with `id` alone reopening a saved board. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `draw` by capability ('for what draw cannot say'), though it never plainly says the board is rendered to the user, leaving that inference to the agent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent when to reach for this instead of `draw` (when the hand-built spec is needed) and what the two `id` modes mean — reopen a saved board vs. change it in place. What's missing is any when-not guidance, e.g. what happens if both `spec` and `id` are supplied, or when to prefer `list_boards`/`get_screen` instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.